The Asheville citizen. [volume] (Asheville, N.C.) 1885-1889, 1887-02-12
The Discussion In the State
Senate On the BUncOmbe
Fence Law.

The State Senate having passed the
substitute to the Pearson Repeal Bill,
which bill we have already published,
many of our readers will feel an interest
in the discussion in that body on the
question. The substitute for the original
bill passed its second reading on Wed
nesday, (passed its final reading on
Thursday and we quote from the News
Observer the following debate on the
matter:
Mr.. Fox, of Madison: do not think
that substitute will meet the wish of the
people. 1t requires a majority of the
voters to petition the county commits
sioners before an election can be had.
We urge the passage of the original bill.
The majority of the citizens of fBuncombe
county want an election, and they con-
slider themselves qualified to exercise
their own Judgment. They want nothing
unreasonable.
Mr.. Kerr, of Sampson: In consulta-
ton with representatives from Buncombe
county, the majority of the committee
found that to repeal the law would work
great hardship. The opposition has con-
sented to the substitute. The wooded
districts can vote on the question and
get relief under the substitute.
Mr.. Fields, of Allegheny: In six
townships it is admitted that it would be
better not to disturb the existing law. It
seemed to US after consulting Buncombe
members and the delegation of farmers,
that the substitute is the proper course,
and that the adoption of the original bill
would be very detrimental, where fences
have gone down, or have been burned.
Buncombe county has spent more than
$40, 900 in two years in fencing in the
county, and this would be lost. If the
county commissioners of Buncombe were
in error, we are not to be blamed; we
must treat the case as before US. We have
offered just and fair compromise by a
very large majority of the committee.
Mr.. Lockey, of New Hanover: Before
the committee here, every farmer dele
gate was an original stock law man,
without exception. The Senator from
Buncombe is here by 1900 majority be.
cause he was in favor of the original bill.
Conventions are like petitions and the
farmers convention did not reflect the
will of the people of Buncombe. The
bitterest contest ever held in this State
was seen there in the last election and a
democratic majority of 800 was turned
into a republican majority of 1900, be.
cause the republicans took ground against
the existing law. Out of the courtesy to
the Buncombe representatives the orig.
inal bill ought to be passed.
| Mr.. Alexander, of Mecklenburg: I
can't see how any Senator can dodge.
Courtesy has already been carried to an
extreme. We have got to look to the
interests of the people. LiVingin county
that has such law, and being prac-
tical farmer myself, I know that an
abrupt change will be virtual confsca-
ton of property. Are the people to be
made foot balls merely out of courtesy to
the Buncombe representatives Ittakes
money to put back fences, as well as tim
Der. The law has taken the fences down.
den,A want to xisaess coniscation Oi
property by our enactmenfs Ishall vote
for the substitute. You can't borrow
money easily or get it, and those people
having to rebuild fences would be as bad
off as at the close of the war. Can two
wrongs make right
| Mr.. Fox: I shall not misrepresent
anything. 1t has been stated that the
bill passed would iniure four-ffths of the
people in parts of the county, and think
the statement big error.
Mr.. Kerr Ito Mr.. Fox: Didn't this
county government question have very
much to do with the election majoritieG
last fall?
Mr.. Fox: It did.
Mr.. Shober: If this measure was left
to the taxpayers only, what would be
the result
Mr.. Fox: I think there would be about
an equal division. On the stump
pledged to vote for the repeal of the
county government law. Every farmer
delegate here voted against the success
full candidates.
Mr.. Turner believing further discus
sion unnecessary, moved the previous
| question.
The substitute was adopted by a vote
of % to IA,
The substitute, as an original bill, on
second reading passed by a vote of of 20
to 16.
The following is the vote on the sub
stitute:
Ayes-Adams, Alexander, Arthur,
Bryan, Clark, Collie, Grouse, Fields,
Harrison, Kerr, Mccormick, Pemberton,
Purcell, Saunders, Shober, Simpson,
Spruill, Stevenson, Thorpe, Tull, Turner.
Webb, and Williamson, all Democrats
but one, Mr.. Arthur-23.
Noes-Cook, Eaves, Epps (colored].
Fox, jenkins, Lockey, Mason Of Chat.
ham, Mason of Orange, Murrow, Sutton,
Taylor (colored), Terrell, Williams Of
Davidson, Williams of Pitt, all Republi-
cans, except Mason of Chatham Gnde-
pendent), Williams of Davidson and
Williams of Pitt, democrats-14.
On Thursday the Senate passed the
substitute on its final reading by vote
of 81 to Is, and the substitute now goes
to the House for concurrence. and its
fate there depends on the wishes of the
Buncombe members.
We understand that in the colloquy
between Mr.. Fox and Mr.. Shober, the
latter asked Mr.. Fox if this question
should be left to the ''land-owners''-
not to the Taxpayers" as quoted.